1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 209 of 2016 1 - Ganesh Gond S/o Sadaram Gond Aged About 50 Years R/o Bangoli, Thana - Kharora, Distt. - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Jagdish Gond S/o Damruram Gond Aged About 25 Years R/o Bangoli, Thana - Kharora, Distt. - Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - District Magistrate Police Station - Piparchedi, Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicants : Dr. Prachi Diwan, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Smt. M. Asha, Panel Lawyer. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Order on Board 12/01/2026 Heard. 1. The applicant has preferred this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 12.02.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, Dist. Gariyaband (CG) in Criminal Appeal No.07/2016, affirming the judgment dated 23.01.2016 passed in Criminal Case No.880/2015 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gariyaband whereby the trial Court convicted the applicants under Sections 9,39,40 & 44 read with Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short, the Act, 1972) and sentenced them to undergo RI for 3 – 3 years with fine of Rs.10,000 – Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 3 – 3 months. Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2026.01.14 15:43:24 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 13.10.2015, trainee A.S.I. Ravi Shankar Sahu along with A.S.I. Sachin Singh and other staff of P.S. Piperchhedi went to village for patrolling, at that time, he received information from the informant that at village Kochaimuda some persons were trying to sell the pelt of the wild animal for gaining illegal profit and on the said information, after preparation of spot Panchnama, they rushed to the spot along with witnesses and found one animal skin looked like a leopard skin and issued notice under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code and thereafter, the said skin was recovered from their possession in presence of independent witnesses Nandlal (P.W.1) and Viyadhar Gond (P.W.3), seizure memo vide Ex.P.2 was prepared. During investigation, F.I.R. vide Ex.P. 11 was lodged against the applicants under Section 51 of the Act, 1972. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the applicants, who abjured their charge and pleaded non-guilty. 4. Learned CJM and the appellate Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicants as mentioned in the opening paragraph. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court have not properly appreciated the evidence available on record. She further submits that in this case two independent witnesses, namely, Nandlal (P.W.1) and Vidyadhar Gond have turned hostile as they have not supported the prosecution case. Further, the alleged seized property was not kept in safe custody and there is no sample seal affixed in the seizure memo (Ex.P.2). There are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of prosecution witnesses and their statements do not corroborate with each other. On these premises, she urged that the applicants be released by allowing the revision. 3 6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel, while opposing the revision, submits that the findings with respect to conviction of the applicants and the sentence imposed thereunder, are the findings being based on evidence and other material available on record, therefore, no interference is called for and the revision is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 8. P.W.5 Ravi Shankar Sahu, Trainee Assistant Sub-Inspector, deposed in his examination-in-chief that upon receiving information that certain persons were attempting to sell the pelt of a forest animal in Village Kochaimuda, he proceeded to the said village along with two witnesses, namely Vidyadhar and Nandlal. He stated that two persons were apprehended, who disclosed their names as Ganesh Gond and Jagdish Gond, and from their possession one animal skin, appearing to be that of a leopard, was recovered. A seizure memo was prepared vide Ex.P.2. However, in his cross-examination (para- 12), he admitted that the charge-sheet does not contain any allegation against accused Ganesh Gond regarding seizure of any property from his possession and that Ganesh Gond was made an accused merely on the ground that he was running along with the co-accused, which fact is not reflected in the record. He further admitted that no action was taken to seal the seized property at the spot. P.W.2 Sachin Singh, another Trainee Assistant Sub-Inspector, stated in para-1 of his deposition that the incident occurred on 13.10.2015. He deposed that while on patrolling duty, he received information from an informant that one person was selling the pelt of an animal in Village Kochaimuda. Thereafter, he, along with the staff and one P.S.I., rushed to the spot, surrounded the accused, and conducted raid proceedings. 4 9. P.W.1 Nandlal and P.W.3 Vidyadhar Gond are projected as independent witnesses to Ex.P.1 (Spot Panchnama) and Ex.P.2 (Seizure Memo). P.W.1 Nandlal, in his examination-in-chief, categorically stated that no spot Panchnama was prepared in his presence and that no leopard skin was seized from the possession of accused Jagdish in his presence. In his cross-examination, he admitted that when he signed Ex.P.1, the document was blank and was not read over to him. He further admitted that witness Vidyadhar was not present when he signed Ex.P.1 and that he had never seen the accused persons earlier and saw them for the first time in Court. He also stated that he signed the documents due to fear of the police. P.W.3 Vidyadhar Gond stated that he went to Police Station Piperchhedi where his signatures had been obtained in some blank papers and at that time accused persons were not present and though he admitted his signatures on Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 but stated in his cross-examination that no leopard skin was seized from the possession of the accused persons in his presence. 10. A bare perusal of the aforesaid evidence reveals that although P.W.2 Sachin Singh and P.W.5 Ravi Shankar Sahu claimed that they acted upon the informant’s information and conducted raid proceedings, but there are material contradictions in their testimonies. While P.W.5 stated that some persons were trying to sell the animal pelt and that he was accompanied by two independent witnesses, P.W.2 stated that only one person was selling the animal pelt and did not clarify whether any independent witnesses were present at the spot. Further, as per the seizure memo (Ex.P.2), the alleged animal skin was not seized from both accused persons, whereas P.W.5 Ravi Shankar Sahu’s testimony suggests otherwise. Ex.D.1 (Rojnamchasanha) also does not contain the seized property was sealed and was kept in Thana Malkhana for safe custody. It is also admitted that the seized property was 5 neither sealed at the spot nor proved to have been kept in safe custody. It is the bounden duty of the prosecution to ensure sealing and safe custody of the seized property, which has not been established in the present case. Moreover, P.W.1 Nandlal and P.W.3 Vidyadhar, the independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. Significantly, Ex.P.2 (seizure memo) does not bear the sample seal in column No.13, which further casts serious doubt on the authenticity of the alleged seizure. 11. Upon careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, it is evident that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The contradictions in the testimonies of official witnesses, the absence of credible independent corroboration, and the serious procedural lapses relating to seizure and custody of the alleged property create substantial doubt regarding the prosecution story. 12. In such circumstances, the findings recorded by the Trial Court, as affirmed by the Appellate Court, convicting the applicants and imposing sentence upon them, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence are liable to be set aside, and the applicants are entitled to acquittal by extending to them the benefit of doubt. 13. Consequently, the revision is allowed. The conviction of applicants under the aforementioned Sections and the sentence imposed thereunder are set aside. The applicants are acquitted of the charges mentioned above by extending benefit of doubt. 14. Since the applicants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 481 of B.N.S.S. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Anjani